re: Andrew Weissmann's intentional ignorance on checks and balances.

quote:

---

I know deep state operatives would love to have the administrative state as a check against the executive

---

Robert Barnes said on a podcast last year (I think it was The Duran) that's what his view of the documents case is. The administrative state wants to be able to dictate what people can see, how it is handled, and they give no deference to the executive. Everything is built to keep secrets for them.

Tom Clancy laid out the Deep State, albeit not by that name, in Executive Orders.

He called them “official Washington” and a big part of the problems in the book was that the new politicians were not kowtowing to these groups and they were getting pissed about it.



Civil servants and those on the periphery are there to keep things running regardless of who the executive is. When they see themselves as bigger than the executive, that is where the Pendleton Civil Service Act needs to be overhauled and these frickers frog marched out.

quote:

---

Federal judge and constitutional law scholar Jay Bybee with a very thorough essay on why SFP is wrong:

---

You clearly didn't read that. First of all, that article is only about state prosecutions while the President is in office. It's inapplicable to this thread for both reasons.

quote:

---

Not to mention the main author of the constitution, Alexander Hamilton:

“The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”

---

Again, and? That just argues my point.

You embarrassed yourself on this point this weekend. Do you really want round 2?

quote:

---

Other than the fact that you are stripped of immunity

---

Immunity has nothing to do with this discussion.

That's a completely different discussion.

Impeachment is political. The result is possible removal from office.

Criminal prosecutions are criminal. The result is possible incarceration.

The Constitution intentionally separates the 2

Immunity deals with the nature of the behavior alleged to be criminal. A President could be theoretically impeached-removed, and be guilty of a crime, that would be thwarted due to immunity for official acts. Now, what that act would be, to get impeached-removed, I do not know, but that's solely up to the House and Senate (not even the USSC can review their determination).

quote:

---

The administrative state is carving out themselves as the unelected 4th branch increment by increment.

---

Fifth column, not 4th branch.

Look at how popular the Fifth column of Norway was during WWII. There is a reason that the head of the Norwegian fascist party, Quisling, is now a common term for that kind of thing.

quote:

---

one vote away from sort of the end of democracy

---

Makes you wonder how long they can beat this dead horse.

quote:

---

The executive is not immune from congressional impeachment and removal...for anything congress deems impeachable, including acts in the criminal code.

---

We’re discussing criminal immunity. The impeachment process has zero bearing whatsoever on the presidents criminal immunity for any act. Impeachment does not create or remove criminal immunity whatsoever.

They are totally separate things.

quote:

---

The executive is not immune from congressional impeachment and removal...for anything congress deems impeachable, including acts in the criminal code.

---

And impeachment has literally nothing to do with a criminal prosecution, even if the same acts form the basis of both

quote:

---

And you’ve just been owned by an actual lawyer, judge and constitutional law scholar.

---

Clearly you did NOT read that article.

Even the article states every federal appeals court who has ruled on this, ruled the way I said.

Also, his paper is only about state court prosecutions of a sitting President.

That article has nothing to do with this thread (discussing a federal prosecution of a person who is not currently President).

quote:

---

Clearly you did NOT read that article.

---

“In this article I intend to address why the constitution protects a sitting president from indictment”.

quote:

---

Even the article states every federal appeals court who has ruled on this, ruled the way I said

---

You’re such a disingenuousness hack and now I know you didn’t read the article because he addresses those rulings and why they aren’t relevant to the president.